Thread by @chrisgeidner

In 10 minutes, we’ll be getting the final #SCOTUS decisions for the term. Two sets of cases remain outstanding: one set is the Voting Rights Act cases out of Arizona and the other addresses donor disclosure requirements in California.

BREAKING: Brnovich is first. Alito, for a 6-3 court, upholds both Arizona voting restrictions. More to come. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…

Important from the majority: The Supreme Court "decline[s] in these cases to announce a test to govern all VRA §2 claims involving rules, like those at issue here, that specify the time, place, or manner for casting ballots."

Here are the factors the majority lays out:

More to come later.

Breaking: In a second 6-3 decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court's conservative majority strikes down California's donor disclosure requirement for charitable organizations as a First Amendment violation. Roberts has the opinion for the court: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…

The ins and outs of the decision in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta are a bit more complicated, as the lineup suggests, but the bottom line is 6-3 with the liberals in dissent.

Back to the voting rights case for now.

The Supreme Court majority explicitly rejects disparate impact claims — often used in employment and housing discrimination cases — in Section 2 VRA cases.

Alito, characteristically, is mad. Even in writing the majority opinion for the Court.

Just an incredible paragraph, in which Alito — writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority — acknowledges that Arizona "leads other States" in rejecting out-of-precinct ballots because they keep changing things on voters, and then is like, "So?"

Here's the court's conclusion about the out-of-precinct provision.

Amazing long game from the Republicans here. Commit election fraud in order to give Sam Alito an election fraud case that he can use to justify "election fraud" as a rationale for passing a law somewhere else where there is no evidence of election fraud.

After upholding both provisions on Section 2 "effects" challenges — and making such challenges more difficult going forward — the Court also upholds the "ballot harvesting" ban from a discriminatory "purpose" challenge.

My god. Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, suggests that VOTERS might not be allowed to bring lawsuits to enforce their rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

TOTALLY NORMAL DEMOCRACY, FOLKS!

Alito, for the 6-justice conservative majority (left), is real mad that Kagan, for the 3 more liberal justices (right), apparently went way off track in her dissent. What did she do, you ask? Detail the history and practices that got us here. Oh.

Heh. As Kagan aptly notes.

"Yet efforts to suppress the minority vote continue. No one would know this from reading the majority opinion." It is impossible, Kagan reminds the Court—and the country—to read today's decision without an understanding of what the Roberts Court did to Section 5 in Shelby County.

And, of course, Kagan notes that it is still going.

For the dissenters, Kagan sums up the current problem and what the Supreme Court does today in two brief paragraphs in the middle of her dissent.

JUST IN: Biden statement on today's Voting Rights Act #SCOTUS decision: "Democracy is on the line."

NEW: In light of today's ruling, House Judiciary leaders Nadler and Cohen say they are working on "an updated John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."

Back to Kagan. Responding to Alito: "Nothing—literally nothing—suggests that the Senate wanted to water down the equal-access right that everyone agreed the House’s language covered. So the majority is dead wrong to say that I want to 'undo' the House-Senate compromise."

Here's Kagan on the majority's ruling itself.

Here's her conclusion.